Research article

Three-dimensional physics-based earthquake ground motion simulations for seismic risk assessment in densely populated urban areas

  • Received: 26 February 2020 Accepted: 04 May 2020 Published: 19 May 2020
  • In this paper we describe a mathematical and numerical approach that combines physics-based simulated ground motion caused by earthquakes with fragility functions to model the structural damages induced to buildings. To simulate earthquake ground motion we use the discontinuous Galerkin spectral element method to solve a three-dimensional differential model at regional scale describing the propagation of seismic waves through the earth layers up to the surface. Selected intensity measures, retrieved from the synthetic time histories, are then employed as input for a vulnerability model based on fragility functions, in order to predict building damage scenarios at urban scale. The main features and effectiveness of the proposed numerical approach are tested on the Beijing metropolitan area.

    Citation: Paola F. Antonietti, Ilario Mazzieri, Laura Melas, Roberto Paolucci, Alfio Quarteroni, Chiara Smerzini, Marco Stupazzini. Three-dimensional physics-based earthquake ground motion simulations for seismic risk assessment in densely populated urban areas[J]. Mathematics in Engineering, 2021, 3(2): 1-31. doi: 10.3934/mine.2021012

    Related Papers:

    [1] Ilse Domínguez-Alemán, Itzel Domínguez-Alemán, Juan Carlos Hernández-Gómez, Francisco J. Ariza-Hernández . A predator-prey fractional model with disease in the prey species. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(3): 3713-3741. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024164
    [2] Saheb Pal, Nikhil Pal, Sudip Samanta, Joydev Chattopadhyay . Fear effect in prey and hunting cooperation among predators in a Leslie-Gower model. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(5): 5146-5179. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019258
    [3] Lazarus Kalvein Beay, Agus Suryanto, Isnani Darti, Trisilowati . Hopf bifurcation and stability analysis of the Rosenzweig-MacArthur predator-prey model with stage-structure in prey. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(4): 4080-4097. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020226
    [4] Xin-You Meng, Yu-Qian Wu . Bifurcation analysis in a singular Beddington-DeAngelis predator-prey model with two delays and nonlinear predator harvesting. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(4): 2668-2696. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019133
    [5] Xiaoyuan Chang, Junjie Wei . Stability and Hopf bifurcation in a diffusivepredator-prey system incorporating a prey refuge. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2013, 10(4): 979-996. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2013.10.979
    [6] Ceyu Lei, Xiaoling Han, Weiming Wang . Bifurcation analysis and chaos control of a discrete-time prey-predator model with fear factor. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(7): 6659-6679. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022313
    [7] Shuo Yao, Jingen Yang, Sanling Yuan . Bifurcation analysis in a modified Leslie-Gower predator-prey model with fear effect and multiple delays. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(4): 5658-5685. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024249
    [8] Gunog Seo, Mark Kot . The dynamics of a simple Laissez-Faire model with two predators. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2009, 6(1): 145-172. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2009.6.145
    [9] Christian Cortés García, Jasmidt Vera Cuenca . Impact of alternative food on predator diet in a Leslie-Gower model with prey refuge and Holling Ⅱ functional response. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(8): 13681-13703. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023610
    [10] Kawkab Al Amri, Qamar J. A Khan, David Greenhalgh . Combined impact of fear and Allee effect in predator-prey interaction models on their growth. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(10): 7211-7252. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024319
  • In this paper we describe a mathematical and numerical approach that combines physics-based simulated ground motion caused by earthquakes with fragility functions to model the structural damages induced to buildings. To simulate earthquake ground motion we use the discontinuous Galerkin spectral element method to solve a three-dimensional differential model at regional scale describing the propagation of seismic waves through the earth layers up to the surface. Selected intensity measures, retrieved from the synthetic time histories, are then employed as input for a vulnerability model based on fragility functions, in order to predict building damage scenarios at urban scale. The main features and effectiveness of the proposed numerical approach are tested on the Beijing metropolitan area.


    Since Lotka and Volterra [1,2] proposed the classical Lotka-Volterra predator-prey model, it has received much attention in studying the relationships between the predator and prey [3,4,5,6,7]. In the meaning of biology, the population cannot grow unrestrictedly. However, the prey grows infinitely in the absence of the predator for the original Lotka-Volterra predator-prey model. To correct this unrealistic defect, the modified Lotka-Volterra predator-prey model with the finite environment carrying capacity for prey is considered and studied (refer to May [8] for a detailed model construction), which is in the form

    dxdτ=Rx(1xK)hxy,dydτ=hxydy, (1.1)

    where R and K are the per capita growth rate and the carrying capacity of the prey x, h and d are the hunting ability and the death rate of the predator y, respectively. As part of the subsystem of the proposed model in this article, more specific analysis and results for model (1.1) will be given in Section 3.

    Recently, Mobilia et al. [9] expanded Lotka-Volterra predator-prey model and studied the effects of the spatial constraints and stochastic noise on the properties of the predator-prey systems. Considering the spatial constraints and stochastic noise, Mobilia et al. [9] formulated a predator-prey model similar to model (1.1), and a stochastic lattice Lotka-Volterra model (SLLVM). They obtained a lot of important and interesting results differing from those of the classical (unrestricted) deterministic Lotka-Volterra predator-prey model by a suitable mean-field approach, field-theoretic arguments and Monte Carlo simulations. In the topical review [10], from the historical overview of population dynamics to the stochastic lattice Lotka-Volterra predator-prey models, Dobramysl et al. focused on spatially extended population dynamics models and the role of fluctuations and correlations in biological systems induced by the demographic noise. Also, they demonstrated the cyclic dominance of three-species populations and multiple species competition networks. The models in the above two articles are the improvements of the Lotka-Volterra predator-prey by considering the finite carrying capacity and incorporating the stochastic noise, spatial constraints and spatial extension.

    The Lotka-Volterra predator-prey models have been explored and expanded widely in the aspects of the diffusion, time delay, harvesting, switching and herd behavior [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21], etc. However, considering the effect of the population interactions for different genotypes on the ecosystem is a research hotspot that has only been developed in recent years.

    Taking into account the fact that the prey is genetically distinguishable and assuming that the prey is divided into two subpopulations with two different genotypes x and y, Venturino [22] proposed an ecogenetic model

    dxdτ=(Rpax)(x+y)hxz,dydτ=(Rqby)(x+y)gyz,dzdτ=z[e(hx+gy)m], (1.2)

    where z represents the predator, R is the reproduction rate of the prey, p and q=1p are the fractions of the newborns for the two genotypes x and y, a and b are the population pressures of the two genotypes of the prey, h and g are the predators' different hunting ability to prey on the two genotypes of food, respectively; m is the mortality rate of the predator, 0<e<1 is the conversion rates of the prey into the predator's newborns. The author showed that if the predator invasion number is greater than 1 then the predator is permanent and the model is persistent. Furthermore, model (1.2) could be persistent oscillatory under some conditions. Reference [23] also proposed an eco-genetic model with distinguishable genotypes happened in the prey. Supposed that the genetically distinguishable species are the predator with two different genotypes y and z, Viberti and Venturino [24] introduced a model

    dxdτ=R(1xK)xhxygxz,dydτ=pe(hy+gz)xmy,dzdτ=qe(hy+gz)xnz, (1.3)

    where R and K are the reproduction rate and the environment's carrying capacity of the prey x, respectively, and all other parameters have the similar meaning to those in model (1.2). Then authors investigated the extinction of the predator, the permanence of the prey and the coexistence of the two species. However, model (1.3) does not allow persistent oscillation, which is the main difference between models (1.2) and (1.3). Similar to model (1.3), Viberti and Venturino [25] proposed a predator-prey model with Holling Ⅱ response function in describing the dynamics of two different genotypes predator.

    Motivated by [22,24,25], we propose a predator-prey model in which the genetic differentiation both happened in the predator and prey. The model is presented in the form as follows

    dxdτ=(Rp1ax)(x+y)mxunxv,dydτ=(Rq1by)(x+y)myunyv,dudτ=p2e(mxu+myu+nxv+nyv)ku,dvdτ=q2e(mxu+myu+nxv+nyv)lv, (1.4)

    where the two genotypes population x and y of the prey have the same reproduction rate R, the two genotypes population u and v of the predator have the same conversion rates 0<e<1; p1 and q1=1p1 are the fractions of the newborns of the prey x and y respectively, p2 and q2=1p2 are the fractions of the newborns of the predator u and v respectively, a and b are the different pressures felt by the two types of prey population, k and l are the mortality rates of u and v respectively; we also assume that the predator u has the same hunting ability to prey x and prey y, which is denoted by m; Similarly, the hunting ability of predator v to prey x and prey y is denoted by n. All coefficients in model (1.4) are positive. Assuming that both the two types of predators have different hunting abilities to the two types of the prey, Castellino et al. [26] gave a more general predator-prey model with both species genetically distinguishable. However, they only roughly analyzed the stability of the boundary equilibria and showed some results by numerical simulations. In this paper, we shall give a detailed analysis of the model (1.4).

    In order to simplify calculations, we first nondimensionalize model (1.4) by letting t=eτ, x(τ)=αX(t), y(τ)=αY(t), u(τ)=γU(t), v(τ)=γV(t). Then it becomes

    dXdt=1αe(Rp1aαX)(αX+αY)1αemαγXU1αenαγXV,dYdt=1αe(Rq1bαY)(αX+αY)1αemαγYU1αenαγYV,dUdt=1γep2e(mαγXU+mαγYU+nαγXV+nαγYV)1γekγU,dVdt=1γeq2e(mαγXU+mαγYU+nαγXV+nαγYV)1γelγV.

    Let α=Rp1a, γ=em, and define new parameters r=Rp1e, c=nm, w=q1p1, s=ba, p=p2mRp1a, q=q2mRp1a, g=ke, d=le. Then the above model can be further simplified into

    dXdt=r(1X)(X+Y)XUcXV,dYdt=r(wsY)(X+Y)YUcYV,dUdt=p[(X+Y)U+c(X+Y)V]gU,dVdt=q[(X+Y)U+c(X+Y)V]dV. (1.5)

    It is clear that all of models (1.2), (1.3), (1.4), and (1.5) have more than one predator or one prey, and are generalizations of Lotka-Volterra predator-prey model apparently.

    Azzali et al. [27] studied a competitive model with genetically distinguishable species. In fact, model (1.4) is similar to the ecoepidemiology model, i.e., the population model with diseases spreading in the species. Earlier researches on the ecoepidemiology models can be found from [28,29], and influences of diseases on the predator-prey models and competitive models can refer to the articles [30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40].

    The rest of this paper is organised as follows. In Sections 2 and 3, we shall analyze model (1.5) without predators and model (1.5) with one genotype in both the predator and prey, respectively. The full model of (1.5) will be discussed in Section 4. Some examples to illustrate our main results will be given in Section 5. In Section 6, we shall give our conclusions and discussions.

    Without the predators, model (1.5) becomes

    dXdt=r(1X)(X+Y),dYdt=r(wsY)(X+Y). (2.1)

    It is easy to know that (0,0) and (1,ws) are two equilibria of the model. And we can obtain the following two lemmas.

    Lemma 2.1. For model (2.1), the boundary equilibrium (0,0) is unstable, and the positive equilibrium (1,ws) is locally stable.

    Proof. The Jacobian matrix of (2.1) is

    J1=[r2rXrYrrXrwrsYrwrsX2rsY].

    Then the characteristic polynomial of J1 at (0,0) is λ2(r+wr)λ, which has two eigenvalues λ1=0, λ2=r(1+w)>0. So, the origin (0,0) is unstable.

    Similarly, at (1,ws) the characteristic polynomial is (λ+r+wrs)(λ+wr+sr), resulting in two negative eigenvalues λ1=r(1+ws), λ2=r(s+w). Therefore, equilibrium (1,ws) is locally stable.

    Lemma 2.2. Model (2.1) does not admit any periodic solution.

    Proof. Let

    B1(X,Y)=1r(X+Y), W1(X,Y)=r(1X)(X+Y), W2(X,Y)=r(wsY)(X+Y),

    it is easy to know that B1(X,Y) is a continuously differentiable function in the first quadrant. We get that

    [W1(X,Y)B1(X,Y)]X+[W2(X,Y)B1(X,Y)]Y=1s<0.

    Then the Bendixson-Dulac criterion ([41], Proposition 1.195) implies our result here.

    Then, Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2 yield the following global behavior of model (2.1).

    Theorem 2.1. Positive equilibrium (1,ws) of model (2.1) is globally asymptotically stable.

    Remark 2.1. In the biological sense, Theorem 2.1 means that two genotypes of the prey will always coexist without the predators. This is consistent with the Hardy-Weinberg law [42], which shows that the gene and genotype frequencies in a species will remain constant from the first daughter generation onwards.

    When both the predator and prey have only one genotype, model (1.5) becomes the nondimensionalization of the Lotka-Volterra predator-prey model (1.1), which is in the following form

    dXdt=r(1X)XXU,dUdt=pXUgU. (3.1)

    It is easy to obtain that the model always has two boundary equilibria (0,0) and (1,0), and has a positive equilibrium (gp,r(pg)p) if p>g. The positive equilibrium (gp,r(pg)p) approaches to the boundary equilibrium (1,0) as pg.

    Next, by using Jacobin matrix and center manifold theory, we have Lemma 3.1 and 3.2 as shown in the following.

    Lemma 3.1. For model (3.1), boundary equilibrium (0,0) is always unstable, and the other boundary equilibrium (1,0)

    (a) is stable when p<g;

    (b) is unstable when p>g;

    (c) has a local center manifold

    Wlocc={(x2,u2)R2:u2K,x2=pru22+(3p2r2+pr)u32+O(u42)}

    when p=g, where K is a small neighborhood of the origin, and

    [x2u2]=P1[X1U], P=[110r].

    Proof. The Jacobian matrix of (3.1) is

    J2=[r2rXUXpUpXg].

    The characteristic polynomial of matrix J2 at (0,0) is (λr)(λ+g), which has two eigenvalues λ1=r, λ2=g. Therefore, equilibrium (0,0) is a saddle point.

    The characteristic polynomial of matrix J2 at (1,0) is (λ+r)(λ+gp), which has two eigenvalues λ1=r<0, λ2=pg. We have the following three cases.

    (a) If p<g, then λ2<0, implying equilibrium (1,0) is locally stable.

    (b) If p>g, then λ2>0. Thus, equilibrium (1,0) is a saddle point. Hence, unstable accordingly.

    (c) If p=g, then λ2=0. By the center manifold theory [43,44], there is a local center manifold at equilibrium (1,0), which is calculated as follows. Let x1=X1, u1=U. Model (3.1) becomes

    [x1u1]=A[x1u1]+[rx21x1u1px1u1], (3.2)

    where

    A=[r100].

    Equilibrium (1,0) of model (1.5) becomes equilibrium (0,0) of (3.2). The eigenvalues of A are the same as those of matrix J2 at(1,0), which are λ1=r, λ2=0. By the center manifold theory, equilibrium (0,0) has a one-dimensional center subspace and a one-dimensional stable subspace. The eigenvectors of A with respect to λ1 and λ2 are

    e1=[10], e2=[1r],

    respectively. Let P=(e1,e2), then P1AP=B, where B=diag(λ1,λ2). Therefore, Let

    [x1u1]=P[x2u2]=[x2+u2ru2],

    then

    [x2u2]=P1AP[x2u2]+P1[rx2(x2+u2)rpu2(x2+u2)]=B[x2u2]+[(x2+u2)(rx2+pu2)p(x2+u2)u2].

    The local center manifold at (0,0) is described by an approximation function ψ:span{e2}span{e1}. Since ψ(0)=Dψ(0)=0, we set the Taylor expansion near (0,0) as

    x2=ψ(u2)=β2u22+β3u33+.

    By the center manifold approximation theorem, we have

    rψ(u2)(ψ(u2)+u2)(rψ(x2)+pu2)=(2β2u2+3β3u23+)p(ψ(u2)+u2)u2.

    Simplifying the above equation and comparing the coefficients of the two sides, we get

    β2=pr, β3=3p2r2+pr.

    Thus, the center manifold at (0,0) is

    Wlocc={(x2,u2)R2:u2K,x2=pru22+(3p2r2+pr)u32+O(u42)},

    where K is a small neighborhood of the origin, and

    [x2u2]=P1[X1U].

    Lemma 3.2. If p>g, then model (3.1) has a stable positive equilibrium (gp,r(pg)p).

    Proof. From the above discussion, the positive equilibrium (gp,r(pg)p) exists if and only if p>g. For model (3.1), the characteristic polynomial of Jacobian matrix at (gp,r(pg)p) is f(λ)=λ2+θ1λ+σ1, where θ1=rgp, σ1=rgpgp. It is clear that σ1>0. Let Δ1=θ214σ1, then Δ1<θ21. The roots of f(λ) are λ1,2=θ1±Δ12. Then, we only need to discuss the real parts of λ1,2.

    1. If Δ10, then both λ1,2 are negative, and positive equilibrium (gp,r(pg)p) is stable accordingly.

    2. If Δ1<0, then λ1,2 are two conjugate complex numbers with negative real part, and positive equilibrium (gp,r(pg)p) is stable accordingly.

    Above discussion indicates the local behavior of equilibria in model (3.1), next we illustrate the global dynamical behaviors of these equilibria. First, we need to discuss the existence of periodic solution in model (3.1).

    Lemma 3.3. For model (3.1), there is no periodic solution.

    Proof. Let

    B2(X,U)=1XU, H1(X,U)=r(1X)XXU, H2(X,U)=pXUgU.

    It is easy to know that B2(X,U) is a continuous differentiable function in the first quadrant. Then, in the first quadrant

    [H1(X,U)B2(X,U)]X+[H2(X,U)B2(X,U)]X=rU<0.

    By the Bendixson-Dulac criterion, model (3.1) has no periodic solution.

    From Lemmas 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, we know the global behavior of model (3.1).

    Theorem 3.1. For model (3.1), boundary equilibrium (0,0) is always unstable, and

    (a) if p>g, then boundary equilibrium (1,0) is unstable and positive equilibrium (gp,r(pg)p) is globally asymptotically stable;

    (b) if p<g, then boundary equilibrium (1,0) is globally asymptotically stable and there is no positive equilibrium.

    From Theorem 3.1, we know that if the death rate of predator is bigger than its conversion rate, then the predator will be extinct while the prey will be permanent; if the death rate of predators is smaller than the conversion rate, then the predator and the prey will coexist permanently.

    It is easy to find that the origin E0(0,0,0,0) and E1(1,ws,0,0) are two boundary equilibria of model (1.5). If

    r(1X)(X+Y)X(U+cV)=0,r(wsY)(X+Y)Y(U+cV)=0,p(X+Y)(U+cV)gU=0,q(X+Y)(U+cV)dV=0, (4.1)

    has a positive solution, then it is the positive equilibrium of model (1.5). Let (X,Y,U,V) is a solution of Eq (4.1), then

    1XX=wsYY, X+Y=h, U=ph2rg(1X)X, V=qh2rd(1X)X, (4.2)

    where h=gdpd+cqg.

    If 0<X<1, 0<Y<ws, U>0, V>0, then (X,Y,U,V) is a positive solution of (4.1), which means it is the positive equilibrium of model (1.5).

    From the first two equations of (4.2), we get

    (1s)Y2+[w+1(1s)h]Ywh=0. (4.3)

    Let Δ2=[w+1(1s)h]2+4wh(1s), then Δ2=[w1+(1s)h]2+4w>0. Let

    f(Y)=(1s)Y2+[w+1(1s)h]Ywh, (4.4)

    then f(ws)>0 if h<1+ws, and f(ws)0 if h1+ws.

    Next, we shall prove that h<1+ws is the necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of positive equilibrium of model (1.5). First, we shall prove that if h<1+ws then 0<X<1, 0<Y<ws, U>0, V>0, and model (1.5) has a positive equilibrium E(X,Y,U,V) accordingly. Three cases are considered.

    Case 1. When s=1, we get Y=whw+1 from (4.3). So, by (4.2),

    X=hw+1, U=phrg(w+1h), V=qhrd(w+1h).

    If h<1+w, then 0<X<1, 0<Y=whw+1<w1+w(1+w)=w, U>0, V>0.

    Case 2. When s<1, i.e., 1s>0, it is easy to find that the parabola f(Y) is opening up and the curve intersects vertical axis at point (0,wh). Thus, (4.3) has one positive root

    Y=h2+(w+1)+Δ22(1s).

    By (4.2) and the above equation, we get

    X=h2+w+1Δ22(1s), U=ph2rg[2(1s)w+1+(1s)hΔ21],
    V=qh2rd[2(1s)w+1+(1s)hΔ21].

    If h<1+ws, then f(ws)>0. From the image of parabola f(Y), we know that f(Y)=0 and f(Y)<0 as Y(0,Y). So 0<Y<ws. By the first equation of (4.2), we have 0<X<1. Accordingly, U>0 and V>0.

    Case 3. When s>1, i.e., 1s<0, the parabola f(Y) is opening down and the curve intersects vertical axis at point (0,wh). Since 1s<0 and w+1(1s)h>0, we know the center shaft of the parabola is positive. So, f(Y) has two positive roots

    Y1,2=h2+(w+1)±Δ22(1s),

    which means

    X1,2=h2+(w+1)Δ22(1s), U1,2=ph2rg[2(1s)w+1+(1s)hΔ21],
    V1,2=qh2rd[2(1s)w+1+(1s)hΔ21]

    from Eq (4.2). By f(ws)>0 as h<1+ws, f(Y)>0 as Y(Y1,Y2) and f(Y)<0 as Y[Y1,Y2], we get that ws(Y1,Y2), which means 0<Y1<ws<Y2. The same reason as that of Case 2 gives 0<X1<1. Accordingly, U1>0, V1>0.

    By the same analysis as the above three cases, we have that if h1+ws then Yws for Case 1 and 2, and both Y2>Y1>ws for Case 3. From the second equation of (4.1), we know that Eqs (4.1) have no positive solutions. Therefore, model (1.5) has no positive equilibria.

    From the above discussion, we get the following results.

    Theorem 4.1. Model (1.5) always has two boundary equilibria E0(0,0,0,0) and E1(1,ws,0,0). Furthermore, h<1+ws is the necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of an unique positive equilibrium E(X,Y,U,V) of model (1.5), where 0<X<1, 0<Y<ws, U>0 and V>0.

    The Jacobian matrix of model (1.5) at E0 is

    J(E0)=[rr00rwrw0000g0000d].

    The characteristic polynomial of J(E0) is λ(λrwr)(λ+g)(λ+d), which has four eigenvalues λ1=0, λ2=r+rw, λ3=g and λ4=d. Since λ2>0, E0 is unstable.

    Theorem 4.2. The boundary equilibrium E0 of (1.5) is unstable.

    The Jacobian matrix of model (1.5) at E1 is

    J(E1)=[rrws01c0rwrswscws00p(1+ws)gcp(1+ws)00q(1+ws)cq(1+ws)d].

    The characteristic polynomial of J(E1) is

    (λ+r+rws)(λ+rw+rs){λ2+[g+d(p+cq)(1+ws)]λ+gd(pd+cqg)(1+ws)}.

    J(E1) has two negative eigenvalues λ1=rrws and λ2=rwrs. The other two eigenvalues of J(E1) are the roots of polynomial f1(λ)=λ2θλ+σ, where

    θ=(p+cq)(1+ws)(g+d), σ=gd(dp+cqg)(1+ws).

    The two roots of f1(λ) are

    λ3,4=θ±θ24σ2. (4.5)

    Let Δ3=θ24σ, then

    Δ3=[gd+(pcq)(1+ws)]2+4cqp(1+ws)2>0.

    It is easy to find that

    g+dp+cqh=cqg2+d2p(p+cq)(dp+cqg)>0,

    so,

    g+dp+cq>h. (4.6)

    Now, we discuss the stability of E1 from three cases.

    Case 1. If h>1+ws, then

    σ=gd(dp+cqg)(1+ws)=(dp+cqg)[gddp+cqg(1+ws)]=(dp+cqg)[h(1+ws)]>0,
    θ=(p+cq)(1+ws)(g+d)=[(1+ws)g+dp+cq](p+cq)<[hg+dp+cq](p+cq).

    By (4.6) and σ>0, we have θ<0 and Δ3=θ24σ<θ2, respectively. Therefore, both λ3,4 have negative real parts, E1 is stable accordingly.

    Case 2. If h<1+ws, then

    σ=(dp+cqg)[h(1+ws)]<0,

    and Δ3=θ24σ>θ2 accordingly. For any θ, (4.5) shows that one of λ3,4 is negative and the other is positive. Therefore, E1 is unstable.

    Case 3. If h=1+ws, then

    σ=(dp+cqg)[h(1+ws)]=0, θ=[hg+dp+cq](p+cq).

    So, Δ3=θ24σ=θ2. Because (4.6) means θ<0, (4.5) shows that one of λ3,4 is θ and the other is 0. Thus, the Jacobian matrix J(E1) has one zero eigenvalue and three negative eigenvalues. By the center manifold theory, there exist a one-dimensional center manifold and a three-dimensional stable subspace at E1.

    From the above discussion, we get the following results.

    Theorem 4.3. Equilibrium E1 of model (1.5) is stable if h>1+ws, and unstable if h<1+ws.

    By Theorems 4.2 and 4.3, we know that if h>1+ws then model (1.5) has no positive equilibrium and E1 is stable. Since the axes are invariant sets of model (1.5), boundary equilibrium E1 is globally stable when h>1+ws.

    Theorem 4.4. If h>1+ws, then the boundary equilibrium E1 is globally stable.

    Theorem 4.5 gives a local center manifold at E1 for Case 3 of the above discussion.

    Theorem 4.5. For boundary equilibrium E1, if h=1+ws, then there is a local center manifold

    Wlocc(E1)={(x2,y2,u2,v2)R4:v2K1,x2=β1v22+0(v32),y2=β2v22+0(v32),u2=β3v22+0(v32)},

    where K1 is a small neighborhood of the origin,

    [x2y2u2v2]=P1[X1YwsUV], P=[10i1i301i2i400p(d+θ)pd00q(g+θ)qg],

    and

    β1=s(pd+cqg)r(s+w)[(ss+w+i3i1θ)(1+ws2)1]i3,
    β2=pd+cqgr(s+w)[(ws+w+wi3s2i2s2θ)(1+ws2)ws2]i3,
    β3=1θ2(1+ws2)i3(pd+cqg),

    with

    i1=p(d+θ)+cq(g+θ)θ+r(1+ws), i2=wsp(d+θ)+cq(g+θ)θ+rs(1+ws), i3=pd+cqgr(1+ws).

    Proof. First, we take a matrix transformation. Let x1=X1, y1=Yws, u1=U and v1=V, then model (1.5) becomes

    [x1y1u1v1]=J(E1)[x1y1u1v1]+[f1(x1,y1,u1,v1)f2(x1,y1,u1,v1)f3(x1,y1,u1,v1)f4(x1,y1,u1,v1)],

    where

    f1(x1,y1,u1,v1)=x1(rx1ry1u1cv1), f2(x1,y1,u1,v1)=y1(srx1sry1u1cv1),
    f3(x1,y1,u1,v1)=p(x1+y1)(u1+cvx), f4(x1,y1,u1,v1)=q(x1+y1)(u1+cvx).

    The eigenvalues of J(E1) are λ1=r(1+ws), λ2=rs(1+ws), λ3=θ, λ4=0. By the center manifold theory, (0,0,0,0) has a one-dimensional center subspace and a three-dimensional stable subspace. The eigenvectors of J(E1) with respect to λ1, λ2, λ3 and λ4 are

    e1=[1000], e2=[0100], e3=[i1i2p(d+θ)q(g+θ)], e4=[i3i4pdqg],

    respectively, where

    i1=p(d+θ)+cq(g+θ)θ+r(1+ws), i2=wsp(d+θ)+cq(g+θ)θ+rs(1+ws), i3=pd+cqgr(1+ws), i4=ws2i3.

    Let P=(e1,e2,e3,e4), then P1J(E1)P=B, where B=diag(λ1,λ2,λ3,λ4). Let

    [x1y1u1v1]=P[x2y2u2v2]=[x2+i1u2+i3v2y2+i2u2+i4v2p(d+θ)u2+pdv2q(g+θ)u2+qgv2],

    then,

    [x2y2u2v2]=P1J(E1)P[x2y2u2v2]+P1[f1(x2,y2,u2,v2)f2(x2,y2,u2,v2)f3(x2,y2,u2,v2)f4(x2,y2,u2,v2)]=B[x2y2u2v2]+[g1(x2,y2,u2,v2)g2(x2,y2,u2,v2)g3(x2,y2,u2,v2)g4(x2,y2,u2,v2)],

    where

    g1(x2,y2,u2,v2)=f1(x2,y2,u2,v2)+i3i1pθf3(x2,y2,u2,v2),
    g2(x2,y2,u2,v2)=f2(x2,y2,u2,v2)+i4i2pθf3(x2,y2,u2,v2),
    g3(x2,y2,u2,v2)=1pθf3(x2,y2,u2,v2), g4(x2,y2,u2,v2)=1pθf3(x2,y2,u2,v2),

    and

    f1(x2,y2,u2,v2)=(x2+i1u2+i3v2)[rx2ry2(rm1+m3+m4)u2(rm2+m3)v2],
    f2(x2,y2,u2,v2)=(y2+i2u2+i4v2)[srx2sry2(srm1+m3+m4)u2(srm2+m3)v2],
    f3(x2,y2,u2,v2)=p[x2+y2+(i1+i2)u2+(i3+i4)v2][(m3+m4)u2+m3v2],
    f4(x2,y2,u2,v2)=q[x2+y2+(i1+i2)u2+(i3+i4)v2][(m3+m4)u2+m3v2],

    with

    m1=i1+i2, m2=i3+i4, m3=pd+cqg, m4=dθ+cqθ.

    The local center manifold is described by a approximation function η:span{e4}span{e1,e2,e3}, which we set

    η(v2)e4=η1(v2)e1+η2(v2)e2+η3(v2)e3.

    Since η(0)=Dη(0)=0, the Taylor expansion at the origin is

    x2=η1(v2)=β1v22+, y2=η2(v2)=β2v22+, u2=η3(v2)=β3v22+.

    By the center manifold approximation theory, we have

    r(1+ws)x2+g1=(2β1v2+)g4,
    rs(1+ws)y2+g2=(2β2v2+)g4,
    θu2+g3=(2β3v2+)g4.

    Simplifying the above equations and comparing the coefficients of the the same order terms in both sides, we get

    β1=s(pd+cqg)r(s+w)[(ss+w+i3i1θ)(1+ws2)1]i3,
    β2=pd+cqgr(s+w)[(ws+w+wi3s2i2s2θ)(1+ws2)ws2]i3,
    β3=1θ2(i3+i4)(pd+cqg).

    Thus, we get the center manifold as follow

    Wlocc(E1)={(x2,y2,u2,v2)R4:v2K1,x2=β1v22+O(v32),y2=β2v22+O(v32),u2=β3v22+O(v32)},

    where K1 is a small neighborhood of the origin, and

    [x2y2u2v2]=P1[X1YwsUV].

    In this section, we consider the stability of E.

    Theorem 4.6. If h<1+ws, then the unique positive equilibrium E of model (1.5) is stable.

    Proof. The Jacobian matrix of model (1.5) at E is

    J=[r2rXrYUcVrrXXcXrwrsYrwrsX2rsYUcVYcYp(U+cV)p(U+cV)p(X+Y)gcp(X+Y)q(U+cV)q(U+cV)q(X+Y)cq(X+Y)d].

    Let j=cqg2+pd2pd+cqg, the characteristic polynomial of J is

    f(λ)=λ4+a3λ3+a2λ2+a1λ+a0, (4.7)

    where

    a3=r(s+1)(X+Y)+(U+cV)+j,

    a2=r2s(X+Y)2+r2(X+Y)[s(wsY)+(1X)]+(d+g)(U+cV)+r(s+1)j(X+Y),

    a1=r(p+cq)(sX+Y)(X+Y)(U+cV)+r2(X+Y)j[s(wsY+(1X))]+gd(U+cV)+(p+cq)(X+Y)(U+cV)2+r2sj(X+Y)2,

    a0=gd[(U+cV)+r(sX+Y)](U+cV).

    For 0<X<1, 0<Y<ws, we know a3>0, a2>0, a1>0 and a0>0. According to the Routh-Hurwitz stability criterion, if

    a2a3a1>0 (4.8)

    also holds, then positive equilibrium E is stable.

    Next, we prove that (4.8) is satisfied. Let g(r)=a2a3a1. Substituting the values of U and V into g(r), we get that g(r)=b2r3+b1r2+b0r, where

    b2=(X+Y)(sX+Y+w+1)[s(wsY)+(1X)+s(X+Y)],

    b1=(s+1)2(X+Y)2j+(wsY+1X)(2sX+2Y+1+w)j,

    b0=(s+1)(X+Y)j2+(wsY+1X)[(d+g)jdg].

    From (4.2), we know that X and Y do not depend on r, and b2>0, b1>0. Since

    (d+g)jdg=pd3+cqg3pd+cqg>0,

    we have b0>0. So, g(r)>0, i.e., (4.8) holds. Therefore, (4.8) and Theorem 4.1 mean that E is stable.

    Remark 4.1. Theorem 4.1 and 4.6 mean h<1+ws is the necessary and sufficient condition for the existence and stability of the unique positive equilibrium E of model (1.5).

    Remark 4.2. By Theorems 4.1, 4.3 and 4.6, we know that if h>1+ws then model (1.5) has no positive equilibrium and E1 is stable, and if h<1+ws then the unique positive equilibrium of model (1.5) is stable and E1 is unstable. Therefore, there is a transcritical bifurcation in model (1.5).

    In this section, some examples are given to illustrate our main results. Furthermore, we get some strategies for species protection by insight into the examples.

    From the discussion in Section 4, we know that the boundary equilibrium E1 is stable when h>1+ws, and the positive equilibrium E appears and becomes stable when h<1+ws. In order to testify our analyzed results, we take some examples by simulation. For convenience, fix

    r=1,c=1/4,w=1/2,p=1/3,q=2/7,g=3/4,d=1/4,

    and the initial condition (0.3,0.5,0.4,0.8). Next, we observe the time series diagrams of the four populations with four different values of s (see Figure 1). In this figure, the red dotted line represents the size of prey X, the blue dotted line represents the size of prey Y, the red solid line represents the size of predator U, the blue solid line represents the size of predator V.

    Figure 1.  Time series diagrams of solutions for model (1.5) with four different values of s. Fixing r=1, c=1/4, w=1/2, p=1/3, q=2/7, g=3/4, d=1/4, and the same initial value (0.3,0.5,0.4,0.8).

    In Figure 1(a), we choose s=27/17 which satisfies the equality h>1+ws. According to Theorem 4.3 and Remark 4.1, in this case the boundary equilibrium E1(1,1754,0,0) is stable while the positive equilibrium doesn't exist. In the figure, the size of two prey populations X and Y approach to 1 and 0.311754 respectively as the time increases, while the two predator populations U and V both tend to zero. This shows that E1 is stable, which verify our results.

    In Figure 1(b), we choose s=1.1 which satisfies the equality h<1+ws. According to Theorem 4.3 and Remark 4.1, in this case the boundary equilibrium E1(1,511,0,0) is unstable while the positive equilibrium E(0.96,0.41,0.04,0.09) is stable. In the figure, the size of two prey populations X and Y approach to 0.96 and 0.41, and the two predator populations U and V both tend to 0.04 and 0.09 respectively as the time increases. This shows that E is stable, which verify our results.

    In Figure 1(c), we choose s=1 which satisfies the equality h<1+ws. According to Theorem 4.3 and Remark 4.1, in this case the boundary equilibrium E1(1,12,0,0) is unstable while the positive equilibrium E(0.91,0.46,0.08,0.20) is stable. In the figure, the size of two prey populations X and Y approach to 0.91 and 0.46, and the two predator populations U and V both tend to 0.08 and 0.20 respectively as the time increases. This verifies our results.

    In Figure 1(d), we choose s=0.8 which satisfies the equality h<1+ws. According to Theorem 4.3 and Remark 4.1, in this case the boundary equilibrium E1(1,58,0,0) is unstable while the positive equilibrium E(0.86,0.51,0.14,0.35) is stable. In the figure, the size of two prey populations X and Y approach to 0.86 and 0.51, and the two predator populations U and V both tend to 0.14 and 0.35 respectively as the time increases. This verifies our results.

    From the biological point of view, the decrease of s can be regarded as the decrease in the ratio of the survival pressure of population Y to the survival pressure of population X. In the process of decreasing, the population Y has more advantages in survival than population X, which leads to an increase in the population density. Conversely, the density of population X decreases due to the stronger stress in the same environment. At the same time, both the densities of predator U and V are increased. It is worth noting that, with the change of s in the above examples, the total amount of two prey populations remains unchanged, while the total density of two predator populations expands. This result gives us two implications for model (1.5): First, the balance of two prey groups can be adjusted by controlling the environmental pressure experienced by one of the prey population; Second, endangered predator populations can be saved by controlling the survival pressure of the prey population.

    In this paper, a predator-prey model with genetic differentiation both happened in the predator and prey is studied, and some interesting results are obtained.

    For model (1.5) without the predators, by the qualitative analysis and the Bendixson-Dulac criterion, we get that the boundary equilibrium (0,0) is unstable, and the positive equilibrium (1,ws) is global asymptotical stability. These indicate that the two genotypes of the prey will be permanent.

    Model (1.5) with one genotype of the predator and prey has two boundary equilibria (0,0) and (1,0), and a positive equilibrium (gp,r(pg)p) when p>g. The boundary equilibrium (0,0) is always unstable. The boundary equilibrium (1,0) is stable when p<g, unstable when p>g, and there is a stable local center manifold at (1,0) when p=g. The positive equilibrium (gp,r(pg)p) is always stable if it exists. We also show that there is no periodic solution in the model by using Bendixson-Dulac criterion. Therefore, the global dynamics of the model is clear as follows: boundary equilibrium (1,0) is globally stable when p<g, positive equilibrium (gp,r(pg)p) is globally stable when p>g, and there is a transcritical bifurcation in the model when p=g.

    Model (1.5) has two boundary equilibria E0(0,0,0,0), E1(1,ws,0,0), and a positive equilibrium E if and only if h<1+ws. The boundary equilibrium E0 is always unstable. Another boundary equilibrium E1 is stable when h>1+ws, unstable when h<1+ws, and there is a stable local center manifold at (1,0) when h=1+ws. The positive equilibrium E is stable if it exists. Furthermore, there is a transcritical bifurcation in the model when h=1+ws.

    If h>1+ws, then model (1.5) has no positive equilibrium, an unstable E0 and a stable E1. Since the axes are invariant with respect to model (1.5), boundary equilibrium E1 is globally stable when h>1+ws. This means that the prey will be permanent and the predators will be extinct, which is similar to the principle of competitive exclusion for two competitive species [45]. However, if h<1+ws then model (1.5) has a local positive equilibrium and two unstable boundary equilibria. The global stability of the positive equilibrium needs to be further analyzed.

    The authors would like to thank the referees for their valuable comments and helpful suggestions.

    The research was supported by the Visiting Scholar Program of Ludong University. The corresponding author would like to thank Department of Mathematics and Statistics at Memorial University of Newfoundland for kindly hosting during his visiting.

    The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.



    [1] Smolka A, Allmann A, Hollnack D, et al. (2004) The principle of risk partnership and the role of insurance in risk mitigation, In: Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2020.
    [2] Erdik M (2017) Earthquake risk assessment. B Earthq Eng 15: 5055-5092.
    [3] Douglas J, Aochi H (2008) A survey of techniques for predicting earthquake ground motions for engineering purposes. Surv Geophys 29: 187.
    [4] Douglas J, Edwards B (2016) Recent and future developments in earthquake ground motion estimation. Earth-Sci Rev 160: 203-219.
    [5] Peruš I, Fajfar P (2009) How reliable are the ground motion prediction equations, In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT 20), Espoo, 1662.
    [6] Al Atik L, Abrahamson N, Bommer J, et al. (2010) The variability of ground-motion prediction models and its components. Seismol Res Lett 81: 794-801.
    [7] Jayaram N, Baker J (2009) Correlation model for spatially distributed ground-motion intensities. Earthq Eng Struct D 38: 1687-1708.
    [8] Park J, Bazzurro P, Baker J (2007) Modeling spatial correlation of ground motion intensity measures for regional seismic hazard and portfolio loss estimation, In: Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering - Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability, ICASP10.
    [9] Weatherill G, Silva V, Crowley H, et al. (2015) Exploring the impact of spatial correlations and uncertainties for portfolio analysis in probabilistic seismic loss estimation. B Earthq Eng 13: 957-981.
    [10] Antonietti PF, Dal Santo N, Mazzieri I, et al. (2018) A high-order discontinuous Galerkin approximation to ordinary differential equations with applications to elastodynamics. IMA J Numer Anal 38: 1709-1734.
    [11] Bradley B (2018) On-going challenges in physics-based ground motion prediction and insights from the 2010-2011 Canterbury and 2016 Kaikoura, New Zealand earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 124: 354-364.
    [12] Graves RW (1996) Simulating seismic wave propagation in 3D elastic media using staggered-grid finite differences. B Seismol Soc Am 86: 1091-1106.
    [13] Lysmer J, Drake LA (1972) A finite element method for seismology, In: Seismology: Surface Waves and Earth Oscillations, Academic Press Inc., 181-216.
    [14] Faccioli E, Maggio F, Paolucci R, et al. (1997) 2D and 3D elastic wave propagation by a pseudospectral domain decomposition method. J Seismol 1: 237-251.
    [15] Komatitsch D, Vilotte JP (1998) The spectral element method: An efficient tool to simulate the seismic response of 2D and 3D geological structures. B Seismol Soc Am 88: 368-392.
    [16] Villani M, Faccioli E, Ordaz M, et al. (2014) High resolution seismic hazard analysis in a complex geological configuration: The case of the Sulmona basin in Central Italy. Earthq Spectra 30: 1801-1824.
    [17] Paolucci R, Mazzieri I, Smerzini C (2015) Anatomy of strong ground motion: Near-source records and three-dimensional physics-based numerical simulations of the Mw 6.0 2012 May 29 Po plain earthquake, Italy. Geophys J Int 203: 2001-2020.
    [18] Paolucci R, Evangelista L, Mazzieri I, et al. (2016) The 3D numerical simulation of near-source ground motion during the Marsica earthquake, Central Italy, 100 years later. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 91: 39-52.
    [19] Antonietti PF, Mazzieri I, Quarteroni A, et al. (2012) Non-conforming high order approximations of the elastodynamics equation. Comput Method Appl M 209: 212-238.
    [20] Käser M, Dumbser M (2006) An arbitrary high-order discontinuous Galerkin method for elastic waves on unstructured meshes-I. The two-dimensional isotropic case with external source terms. Geophys J Int 166: 855-877.
    [21] Antonietti PF, Ayuso de Dios B, Mazzieri I, et al. (2016) Stability analysis of discontinuous Galerkin approximations to the elastodynamics problem. J Sci Comput 68: 143-170.
    [22] Mazzieri I, Stupazzini M, Guidotti R, et al. (2013) SPEED: SPectral Elements in Elastodynamics with Discontinuous Galerkin: A non-conforming approach for 3D multi-scale problems. Int J Numer Meth Eng 95: 991-1010.
    [23] Antonietti PF, Mazzieri I (2018) High-order Discontinuous Galerkin methods for the elastodynamics equation on polygonal and polyhedral meshes. Comput Method Appl M 342: 414-437.
    [24] Ferroni A, Antonietti PF, Mazzieri I, et al. (2017) Dispersion-dissipation analysis of 3-D continuous and discontinuous spectral element methods for the elastodynamics equation. Geophys J Int 211: 1554-1574.
    [25] Graves R, Jordan T, Callaghan S, et al. (2011) CyberShake: A physics-based seismic hazard model for Southern California. Pure Appl Geophys 168: 367-381.
    [26] Paolucci R, Infantino M, Mazzieri I, et al. (2018) 3D physics-based numerical simulations: Advantages and current limitations of a new frontier to earthquake ground motion prediction. The Istanbul case study, In: Recent Advances in Earthquake Engineering in Europe: 16th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering-Thessaloniki 2018, Springer, 203-223.
    [27] Infantino M, Mazzieri I, Özcebe A, et al. (2020) 3D physics-based numerical simulations of ground motion in Istanbul from earthquakes along the Marmara segment of the North Anatolian Fault. Bull seism Soc Am.
    [28] Porter K, Jones L, Cox D, et al. (2011) The ShakeOut scenario: A hypothetical Mw7.8 earthquake on the Southern San Andreas fault. Earthq Spectra 27: 239-261.
    [29] Smerzini C, Pitilakis K (2018) Seismic risk assessment at urban scale from 3D physics-based numerical modeling: The case of Thessaloniki. B Earthq Eng 16: 2609-2631.
    [30] Detweiler S, Wein A (2017) The HayWired earthquake scenario-Earthquake hazards. Scientific Investigations Report 2017-5013(A-H). U.S Geological Survey.
    [31] Detweiler S, Wein A (2018) The HayWired earthquake scenario-Engineering implications. Scientific Investigations Report 2017-5013(I-Q). U.S Geological Survey.
    [32] Evangelista L, del Gaudio S, Smerzini C, et al. (2017) Physics-based seismic input for engineering applications: A case study in the Aterno river valley, Central Italy. B Earthq Eng 15: 2645-2671.
    [33] Guidotti R, Stupazzini M, Smerzini C, et al. (2011) Numerical study on the role of basin geometry and kinematic seismic source in 3D ground motion simulation of the 22 February 2011 Mw 6.2 Christchurch earthquake. Seismol Res Lett 82: 767-782.
    [34] Smerzini C, Pitilakis K, Hashemi K (2017) Evaluation of earthquake ground motion and site effects in the Thessaloniki urban area by 3D finite-fault numerical simulations. B Earthq Eng 15: 787-812.
    [35] Stacey R (1988) Improved transparent boundary formulations for the elastic-wave equation. B Seismol Soc Am 78: 2089-2097.
    [36] Antonietti PF, Ferroni A, Mazzieri I, et al. (2018) Numerical modeling of seismic waves by discontinuous spectral element methods. ESAIM ProcS 61: 1-37.
    [37] Aki K, Richards PG (2002) Quantitive Seismology: Theory and Methods. San Francisco: Freeman.
    [38] Arnold DN, Brezzi F, Cockburn B, et al. (2002) Unified analysis of discontinuous Galerkin methods for elliptic problems. SIAM J Numer Anal 39: 1749-1779.
    [39] Arnold DN (1982) An interior penalty finite element method with discontinuous elements. SIAM J Numer Anal 19: 742-760.
    [40] Epshteyn Y, Rivière B (2007) Estimation of penalty parameters for symmetric interior penalty Galerkin methods. J Comput Appl Math 206: 843-872.
    [41] Rivière B, Wheeler MF (2003) Discontinuous finite element methods for acoustic and elastic wave problems, In: Current trends in scientific computing (Xi'an, 2002), Providence: Amer. Math. Soc., 271-282.
    [42] Rivière B, Shaw S, Whiteman JR (2007) Discontinuous Galerkin finite element methods for dynamic linear solid viscoelasticity problems. Numer Meth Part D E 23: 1149-1166.
    [43] Canuto C, Hussaini MY, Quarteroni A, et al. (2006) Spectral Methods - Fundamentals in Single Domains, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
    [44] Quarteroni A, Valli A (1994) Numerical Approximation of Partial Differential Equations, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
    [45] Canuto C, Hussaini MY, Quarteroni A, et al. (2007) Spectral methods - Evolution to complex geometries and applications to fluid dynamics. Berlin: Springer.
    [46] di Prisco C, Stupazzini M, Zambelli C (2007) Nonlinear SEM numerical analyses of dry dense sand specimens under rapid and dynamic loading. Int J Numer Anal Met 31: 757-788.
    [47] Stupazzini M, Paolucci R, Igel H (2009) Near-fault earthquake ground-motion simulation in the Grenoble valley by a high-performance spectral element code. B Seismol Soc Am 99: 286-301.
    [48] Kramer SL (1996) Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Pearson Education India.
    [49] Luco N, Cornell C (2007) Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions. Earthq Spectra 23: 357-392.
    [50] Housner GW (1952) Spectrum intensities of strong-motion earthquakes. Earthq Eng Res Inst 21-36.
    [51] Mai C, Konakli K, Sudret B (2017) Seismic fragility curves for structures using non-parametric representations. Front Struct Civ Eng 11: 169-186.
    [52] Singhal A, Kiremidjian AS (1996) Method for probabilistic evaluation of seismic structural damage. J Struct Eng 122: 1459-1467.
    [53] Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Lee J, et al. (2000) Statistical analysis of fragility curves. J Eng Mech 126: 1224-1231.
    [54] Ellingwood BR (2001) Earthquake risk assessment of building structures. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 74: 251-262.
    [55] Porter K, Kennedy R, Bachman R (2007) Creating fragility functions for performance-based earthquake engineering. Earthq Spectra 23: 471-489.
    [56] Seyedi D, Gehl P, Douglas J, et al. (2010) Development of seismic fragility surfaces for reinforced concrete buildings by means of nonlinear time-history analysis. Earthq Eng Struct D 39: 91-108.
    [57] Zentner I (2010) Numerical computation of fragility curves for NPP equipment. Nucl Eng Des 240: 1614-1621.
    [58] Gencturk B, Elnashai AS, Song J (2008) Fragility relationships for populations of woodframe structures based on inelastic response. J Earthq Eng 12: 119-128.
    [59] Jeong SH, Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS (2012) Probabilistic seismic performance assessment of codecompliant multi-story RC buildings. Eng Struct 34: 527-537.
    [60] Banerjee S, Shinozuka M (2008) Mechanistic quantification of RC bridge damage states under earthquake through fragility analysis. Probabilist Eng Mech 23: 12-22.
    [61] Wu F, Wang M, Yang XY (2013) Building seismic vulnerability study for China high rises. Appl Mech Mater 353: 2301-2304.
    [62] Gu G, Lin T, Shi Z (1983) Catalogue of Earthquakes in China (1831AD-1969BC). Beijing: Science Press.
    [63] Ding Z, Romanelli F, Chen Y, et al. (2004) Realistic modeling of seismic wave ground motion in Beijing city. Pure Appl Geophys 161: 1093-1106.
    [64] Gao M, Yu Y, Zhang X, et al. (2004) Three-dimensional finite-difference modeling of ground motions in Beijing form a Mw 7 scenario earthquake, In: Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 581.
    [65] Xiong C, Lu X, Huang J, et al. (2019) Multi-LOD seismic-damage simulation of urban buildings and case study in Beijing CBD. B Earthq Eng 17: 2037-2057.
    [66] Xu Z, Lu X, Zeng X, et al. (2019) Seismic loss assessment for buildings with various-LOD BIM data. Adv Eng Inform 39: 112-126.
    [67] Lu X, Zeng X, Xu Z, et al. (2019) Improving the accuracy of near real-time seismic loss estimation using post-earthquake remote sensing images. Earthq Spectra 34: 1219-1245.
    [68] Allen TI, Wald DJ (2009) On the use of high-resolution topographic data as a proxy for seismic site conditions (VS30). B Seismol Soc Am 99: 935-943.
    [69] Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. B Seismol Soc Am 84: 974-1002.
    [70] Causse M, Cotton F, Cornou C, et al. (2008) Calibrating median and uncertainty estimates for a practical use of empirical Green's functions technique. B Seismol Soc Am 98: 344-353.
    [71] Schmedes J, Archuleta RJ, Lavallée D (2012) A kinematic rupture model generator incorporating spatial interdependency of earthquake source parameters. Geophys J Int 192: 1116-1131.
    [72] Cauzzi C, Faccioli E, Vanini M, et al. (2015) Updated predictive equations for broadband (0.01-10 s) horizontal response spectra and peak ground motions, based on a global dataset of digital acceleration records. B Earthq Eng 13: 1587-1612.
    [73] Moehle J, Bozorgnia Y, Jayaram N, et al. (2011) Case studies of the seismic performance of tall buildings designed by alternative means. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center College of Engineering University of California, Berkeley PEER Report 5.
    [74] Kazantzi A, Vamvatsikos D, Porter K, et al. (2014) Analytical vulnerability assessment of modern highrise RC moment-resisting frame buildings in the Western USA for the Global Earthquake Model, In: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology.
    [75] Council BSS (1997) NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA-273, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
    [76] Xu P, Xiao C, Li J (2014) Research on relationship between natural vibration periods and structural heights for high-rise buildings and its reference range in China. Int J High-rise Buildings 3: 49-64.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Jiandong Zhao, Tonghua Zhang, Zhixia Han, Dynamic behavior of a stochastic SIRS model with two viruses, 2020, 0, 2191-0294, 10.1515/ijnsns-2019-0208
    2. Eric Planas, Jordi Mill, Andy L. Olivares, Xabier Morales, Maria Isabel Pons, Xavier Iriart, Hubert Cochet, Oscar Camara, 2022, Chapter 18, 978-3-030-93721-8, 160, 10.1007/978-3-030-93722-5_18
    3. G. P. Neverova, O. L. Zhdanova, E. Ya. Frisman, Evolutionary dynamics of predator in a community of interacting species, 2022, 108, 0924-090X, 4557, 10.1007/s11071-022-07372-z
    4. O. L. Zhdanova, G. P. Neverova, E. Ya. Frisman, Predator Evolution in a Model of Interacting Species: To the Question about Maintaining Polymorphism by Litter Size in Natural Populations of Arctic Fox, 2022, 58, 1022-7954, 94, 10.1134/S1022795422010136
    5. Li Li, Dongshen Fang, Qiyao Ye, Tan Hu, Shaobo Shi, An ensemble framework for risk prediction of left atrial thrombus based on undersampling with replacement, 2024, 36, 0941-0643, 18613, 10.1007/s00521-024-10166-6
    6. G. Santhosh Kumar, C. Gunasundari, Salah Mahmoud Boulaaras, M. Aakash, N.B. Sharmila, Genetic differentiation of prey predator interaction model along with an Holling type-II functional response, 2024, 9, 26668181, 100649, 10.1016/j.padiff.2024.100649
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2021 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(8377) PDF downloads(1117) Cited by(19)

Figures and Tables

Figures(10)  /  Tables(8)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog